Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judges above the law


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Deleted above the law. El_C 07:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Judges above the law
inherently POV and does not relate to any established concept Fitzaubrey 07:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * oh yeah Delete per nom --Richard 07:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I never broke the law! I AM the law! Delete Danny Lilithborne 08:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 09:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. yandman  09:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Rrrrrip!) - That one's repealed. Delete per above. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, it's a simple paraphrase of the opinion espoused by the web site of the same name. The opinion is on the subject of malfeasance in office.  Unsurprisingly, we have an article on that, too.  This article is inherently non-neutral.  Delete. Uncle G 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Such a pity, hoped it was a Judge Dredd article. Delete as NPOV. Vizjim 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV-pushing. NawlinWiki 17:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonsense. Gazpacho 18:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete garbage. QuiteUnusual 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Vectro 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV nonsense. - Lex 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I was almost hoping for something to put on BJAODN. Lord Rasputin 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.